The golfers' Music Room

First topic message reminder :

Mac started a really good thread today and while I'm not as fussy about things going off topic as some people, it does seem a shame to drown out Mac's thread with music chat - so I think we'll have a music corner for us golfers (in addition to the forum-wide music section)

I know Kwini is keen on his music, often throwing musical references into his ballwasher topics (I remember one of his last efforts on the old site being entitled The Boys Are Back In Town, and the conversation going off into Thin Lizzy territory!

S_R (on the other thread) made a reference to "hating the Beatles" - discuss!

Diggers wrote:They do exist before they go on the show you know, they are given a voice and a talent in their own right. Like I say the record companies have been doing exactly what cowell is doing for decades and many of the great songs arent written by the artist who is kown for performing them. Cant see a lot of difference really, on the whole music has always been a popularity contest, if you arent popular people wont buy your records of go to your gigs whether your are Bob Dylan or Jedward.

I very much doubt many were actively seeking a career in music prior to chancing their arm on a laughable tv show, majority would have a hairbrush and a bedroom mirror. If it was about proper talent they'd let people sing what they want, how they want it and wouldn't show week upon week of absolute dross.

Can't stand Dylan either, even though he more closely fits the credible criteria
As usual though we just have a difference of opinion, and thats fair enough

Diggers wrote:

Davie wrote:At the mention of Steve Winwood I have to say that his song called Valerie is far better than Amy Whinehouse

To be fair the Zutons version is better than either of them and the sax player is pretty fit. Not a fan of Steve Winwood but though Back In The High Life was a really good tune. Its the same with a lof of singers/bands though, U2 are getting a bit of a kicking on here and im no fan but there are good half dozen of their tracks that I really like, The Sweetest Thing is a lovely little pop song.
Another rule of music as far as i can see is that the longer performers go on the worse their music gets as a rule, I cite Elton John, McCartney and Bowie as examples.

I believe the winky emoticon put in by Davie is alluding to the fact that he was comparing two totally different songs that happen to have the same title. I do however agree with diggers about the Zutons version. Never really found the gold in AW that others appear to have.

Also find it difficult to criticise the Beatles. They were of my generation (although I gave away a ticket to see them in Nottingham ) because they really did move the sound of popular music on to a different plane. Can't agree with Mav's opinion of Elvis, he was another innovator - I guess it's as OPW says, 50 year old music is not for 20 somethings!

Oldshanker.

I don't know if I agree with your last sentence.
My two daughters are 24 and 27 years younger than me. they were buying Motown records when I was buying Tears for fears.
My eldest used to dislike Runrig when we were playing it and a few years ago I saw one of thier CD's in her collection.
My generation~ I used to love Glen Miller which was my parents music.

I don't think the age thing is so different now.

Maybe not Doon, but it wasn't considered cool when I was 16, to say how much you liked the music of Vic Damone and Rosemary Clooney!

If people are still downloading Beatles music as they are now, nearly 50 years on, then they must be better than some of the distinctly average forgettable 'pap' that has followed.

My criteria for music I like nowadays is mainly centred around - would I go and see them live? - U2 no, Steve Winwood yes, Bob Dylan no, Eminem yes

I think us old pharts on here are much more hip than the young 'uns!

oldshanker wrote:I believe the winky emoticon put in by Davie is alluding to the fact that he was comparing two totally different songs that happen to have the same title.

Actually the "winky emoticon" was simply because of the deliberate misspelling of Ms Whinehouse's name - but yes I did also allude to the fact they were different songs.

I've just had a look into the criminal records of Messrs Cowell and Walsh and it seems they've got a lot to answer for, and the word credibility cannot be anywhere near.

Walsh: Westlife, Boyzone, Jedward, Girls Aloud, G4 and JLS
Cowell: Westlife, Robson and Jerome, Sinitta, Il Divo, SuBo and Mighty Morphin Power Rangers.

Can anyone really think of a reason why these two c***s lives should be spared? Who buys this crap?

I've got pretty eclectic tastes, if I enjoy it I'll listen to it! Back in the 1970s I was very much into the post-punk new wave sort of stuff (Buzzcocks, Clash, Joy Division, Elvis Costello, Blondie (full-length Debbie Harry poster above bed) and the Jam. The Jam got me thinking and listening to the stuff Weller was influenced by (Who, Small Faces, Kinks, Manfred Mann, Dylan, Tamla Motown and Northern Soul) all pretty much a mod/scooterist diet. However, I then started listening to the stuff which influenced those people and that led me to listen to Muddy Waters, Howling Wolf, John Lee Hooker, Sonny Boy Williamson, Elmore James, Robert Johnson and other Blues legends. Listening to people like Jimmy McGriff and Georgie Fame and Junior Walker and the Allstars then got me into (you've guessed it) modern jazz. Before you knew it by my late teens and early 20s I was listening to Charlie Parker/Dizzie Gillespie/Art Blakey and the Jazz Messengers (seen him live) John Coltrane, Stan Getz. Found some of that stuff (for a non-musician) pretty hard to listen to and opted for the softer stuff like Jimmy Smith, Miles Davis, Cannonball Adderley, Gerry Mulligan, MJQ, Dave Brubeck and the 50s/60s jazzers.

I don't rate many of the modern singers tbh. The women (most of them) all try and sound like Whitney Houston and she was vastly over-rated imho. Of the old Jazz/Blues singers you can't go far wrong with Ella Fitzgerald or Sarah Vaughan. Billie Holliday (proper tragic life) for her pure emotion and style although technically not as sound as some. Sixties soulsters-wise Aretha Franklin is right up there and if you want to hear some bloody good 'from the heart' soul I would highly recommend you listen to Maxine Brown and Gladys Knight. As far as what the gents have got to offer - it goes without saying that Otis Redding, Wilson Pickett, Al Green, Sam and Dave, Percy Sledge and Marvin Gaye are all well-known excellent exponents of black sixties soul music; however I also recommend you check out Bobby Bland, Gene Chandler and Garnet Mimms.

The Beatles took an awful lot from some of the peeps I've mentioned above and a lot of them died in virtual poverty.....

more beatles bashing?

You could say the same about the Stones - probably tenfold

In every field there are always people who are derivative of another, doesn't mean that people who are subsequently more successful owe their influences anything though does it?
Many of them will have earned (and lost) a fortune. I doubt The Beatles or Stones spent it for them.

Stones were definitely better than The Beatles though in my opinion, some of the lyrics from McCartney and Lennon were shiversomely embarassing.

Davie:
I like some of the Beatles songs, but creatively and musically there were better songwriters and certainly much better musicians out there. I would certainly agree the Stones were overrated. I just feel a lot of it was about image with the Beatles.....

Noshankingtonite wrote:Davie:
I like some of the Beatles songs, but creatively and musically there were better songwriters and certainly much better musicians out there. I would certainly agree the Stones were overrated. I just feel a lot of it was about image with the Beatles.....

Ray and Dave Davies of The Kinks, Roger Daltrey and Pete Townshed, Gilmour/Barret/Waters, Plant/Page, Clapton/Baker/Bruce for example.

Regardless of tastes or merits of particular artists, it is a truism that many of the blues legends Noshanking mentions would never have achieved commercial fame had it not been for the likes of George Harrison, Keef and Mick, Clapton etc bringing them to popular attention.

s_r: Yes, but The Beatles came first, paved the way.

but how far do you go back Kwini, without Bill Hailey and Lonnie Donegan there would be no Beatles, music like art is very derivative so it's difficult to say if The Beatles were the first to "pave the way" or whether they were just in the right place at the right time.

super_realist wrote:In every field there are always people who are derivative of another, doesn't mean that people who are subsequently more successful owe their influences anything though does it?
Many of them will have earned (and lost) a fortune. I doubt The Beatles or Stones spent it for them.

Stones were definitely better than The Beatles though in my opinion, some of the lyrics from McCartney and Lennon were shiversomely embarassing.

It goes a bit deeper than that though Super. A lot of the Blues guys never got the royalties or recognition for their art which was pretty much ripped off by white European/American singers in the Fifties & Sixties. Even Elvis used material from Sun Studios which had been originally recorded by other artists, but because he was white and good looking had more universal appeal and the opportunity for universal broadcast (which the black artists didn't get for a long long time). Now some British artists gave back by helping black artists gain the recognition they deserved by bringing them over to the UK to gig. John Mayall's Blues Breakers, The Animals (through whom Hendrix got his big break) Alexis Korner all invited black blues singers over here because they recognised great music and the opportunity to give back to what had influenced their careers hugely.

s_r,
That's very fair, but none of the others, Cliff, Billy Fury, Adam Faith, had the repertoire and success that transcended the music industry like The Beatles did, and just as important none had any success in the US.

But quite correct that everyone has influences.

No shanking

Noshankingtonite wrote:Davie:
I like some of the Beatles songs, but creatively and musically there were better songwriters and certainly much better musicians out there.

NST - it's all very subjective (one man's meat etc.) - There may have been better musicians out there (though McCartney, for all his faults, is no mug when it comes to musicianship, and it's very cool and trendy to laugh at poor old Ringo, but a lot of very well respected drummers include Ringo in their influences) - but to try to suggest that Lennon and McCartney weren't great songwriters is really quite laughable. You would have to go a long way to find a better songwriting partnership than them.

Macca is taking quite a kicking on here but his big talent was making unforgettable melodies. His big failing was the syrupy sweet style he had alone - Lennon had the acidity to cut through that sweetness. It's no coincidence that two of the best solo works Macca produced after the Beatles were CDs where he collaborated with Eric Stewart (10CC) and Elvis Costello. Both of those had the ability to cut through the sickliness that was McCartney's biggest problem, in the same way that Lennon did

Well i will prepare to be abused by admitting i am a hip hop and rap fan,

I also like many other types of music, although for the first time ever i think S_R has said something i agree with about U2, they are awful

Kwini, Cliff pre dated The Beatles by some time. So could you say they were influenced by him?

Lennon even said of Cliff and The Shadows:- "Before Cliff came along there was nothing in the British scene worth listening to"

I think Cliff was s**t, but there's no accounting for taste.

Noshankingtonite...

The full-length Debbie Harry poster above the bed...I think most of us had that poster in those days!

I saw Blondie in concert at Southend last year...fantastic night and Debbie still looked great

She looks pretty ropey now Blue

s_r,
No, but you could certainly say that they were influenced by Hank Marvin and Jet Harris. And CR did help pave the way for a market that scarcely existed in GB before the late fifties.
One of the things The Beatles also did, as opposed to Stones/Who/Kinks etc, was to appeal to a much wider audience. Shock horror when The Beatles invaded Cliff Richard territory but the Stones and Pretty Things and most of the rest were pariahs to the older generation for a while.

Music is so subjective I always feel, throughout the past 80 or so years there have been those artists which just 'hit the spot' with the masses. Does that mean that the masses were correct or has there always been a kind of 'dumming down, lowest-common denominator' to music. I mean would you say that back in their respective eras:

Glen Miller was better than Duke Ellington or Cab Callaway?
Elvis Presley was better than Buddy Holly or Chuck Berry
The Beatles were better than The Who, Beach Boys or Hendrix
Bowie was better than Santana, Fleetwood Mac or Queen
U2 were better than Simple Minds, New Order or Spandau Ballet
Take That were better than Blur, The Verve or Oasis
Beyonce is better than Eminem, Britney Spears or Christina Aguilera

It's all very subjective really, but I don't personally accept the notion that 'most popular' is necessarily best. Look how many songs through the ages 'died the death of a thousand plays'

That was it though Kwini, The Beatles occupied that rather "mid atlantic" catch all market that was a bit devoid of true feeling or attitude.
It was back of the bus chirpiness with some pleasant tunes and wishy washy lyrics.
Bands like The Stones, The Faces and The Who were a little bit more edgy, a bit more revolutionary or anti establishment.

I'm not a fan of bands who appeal to the mass market in general, as it usually means insipid music that doesn't really say much, and so I don't find it particularly influential.

There's nothing intrinsically wrong with it, it's just a bit middle of the road, due to having to appeal to such a mass market.


Shanking, I have to respectfully disagree that although music is a personal thing, there isn't a way in the world that anyone could say U2 are better than New Order in any respect.

BlueCoverman wrote:Noshankingtonite...

The full-length Debbie Harry poster above the bed...I think most of us had that poster in those days!

I saw Blondie in concert at Southend last year...fantastic night and Debbie still looked great

Blue:
Yep I still would.... there's something about Debbie Harry that drives a man wild.. absolute sex-on-a-stick. Used to quite fancy the singer from Bow Wow Wow too. She cud've gone 'Wild in the Country' with me any day

s_r,
As I said, one's preference is a matter of personal taste but the massive thing about The Beatles was that they were indisputedly the first. And their early music was nothing like their later stuff. Like 'em or not and I'm somewhat ambivalent, but they paved the way.
Their initial followers were other "Mersey Beat"ers, a big deal when London and Manchester bands broke through.
I was an Animals fan but they were even later.

super_realist wrote: Shanking, I have to respectfully disagree that although music is a personal thing, there isn't a way in the world that anyone could say U2 are better than New Order in any respect.

That's my whole point SR - but the MASSES would have gone for U2 wouldn't they, because that's what they do. They take the 'easy listening' option and don't delve deeper. The whole point I made earlier about one artist leading to another is that if you are intelligent, you will want to listen to stuff which you have to seek out, not that which is spoon-fed to you. In the bad old days it was record fairs or a mate's house, now you have Youtube and Spotify. Tons easier, but a lot of people are too thick imho

The Beatles are possibly a tad overated but songs like Something and My Guitar Gently Weeps and Here Comes The Sun are classics....in fact anything Geotge Harrison wrote.

Don't you think though Kwini that this belie that they were the first, and were the first commercially big "pop" band has given them credit that is somewhat overplayed, for instance you always hear about what "great" songwriters they were but if you look past the rather inoffensive melodies and often laughable lyrics, were they really any good at all?
I actually think Harrison was more talented than either of those two.

Independently they also weren't much better. Imagine is one of the most turgid, and sentimentally sickening pieces of rot ever written while McCartney's copy book has been well and truly blotted

If there stuff had been written 5 years later in the midst of the 60's scene would they have been given so much credit.

I think Revolver was their zenith from a creativity point of view, and from my point of view their best album, but I doubt I'd have it in my top 100

s_r,
That's possible. I'd give them huge credit, still love listening to some of their tracks, others I hope I never hear again.
But I love snails, my wife loves olives - good job we all have different tastes!

On a separate note, and harking back to the sixties, went to see Crosby and Nash a few weeks ago - couldn't believe how good they still sounded.

Quite right, Kwini, be boring if we all thought the same, I'd have no one to argue with for a start and it would mean Diggers and I would agree on everything. Imagine that.

Just revisiting Ooh La la and Stay With Me by The Faces. I like the fact that bands like that were overshadowed by The Beatles, being the most popular doesn't mean you were the best.

Its nice when you hear a new "old" song, caught Cant stop listening to Only Living Boy in New York right now, always been a Simon and Garfunkel fan but not heard that one before and love it.

s_r,
Being the most popular almost always guarantees you're not the best . . . .

Digs,

Coming up to 9/11 and OLBinNY reminds me that I was advised to walk forty blocks to the 59th Street Bridge that day, only way out of mid-town Manhattan until I escaped later!

Bridge over troubled water album isn't it diggers? Frank Lloyd Wright on that album is a little heard gem as well.

s_r the Faces and the Beatles satisfy my would I go and see them live criteria. Faces - yes every time, Beatles - no, as I have already said I gave a ticket away for them.

However, I accept wholeheartedly the fact that some of their music was a tad mindless, it was of the moment and if you dissect any song it would be an embarrassing recital. As an act, they were apparently fantastic live in the early cavern and Germany days, admittedly performing covers of what would be traditional r&b. But superstardom and ever more intricate mixing etc., meant they became a studio band. A shame in my opinion, while they would never set the world on fire with their playing skills (John famously saying that Ringo was not only not the best drummer in the world, he also wasn't the best drummer in the Beatles), they could write music that touched and changed a generation.

Fair enough Shanks, as Alan Brazil would say "Not for me Beeky"
Probably good at the time, but given a bit too much credit as if no one could touch them considering the realy good stuff that was around at the time.
Who couldn't have preferred The Kink's Autumn Almanac to The Beatles dreadful Octopus Garden?

super_realist wrote:Fair enough Shanks, as Alan Brazil would say "Not for me Beeky"
Probably good at the time, but given a bit too much credit as if no one could touch them considering the realy good stuff that was around at the time.
Who couldn't have preferred The Kink's Autumn Almanac to The Beatles dreadful Octopus Garden?

A very fair point and I rest your case.

It strikes me that U2 and to a slightly lesser extent Coldplay have become victims of their own success. There's nothing bad about their music, certainly not enough to merit the sort of loathing people profess for them. Seems like bitterness rather than genuine criticism. I've seen both of them at Wembley Stadium (old and new respectively) and they were two of the best gigs I've ever been to.

Totally agree with Mav's assessment of Presley. The Beatles I came to appreciate relatively recently and while they weren't the best musicians or songwriters of their era, they had a greater range over the course of their career which is what makes them interesting to me.

I won't go into who else I listen to but for those with eclectic tastes in popular music I heartily recommend BBC 6 Music, in particular Radcliffe & Maconie.

super_realist wrote:Quite right, Kwini, be boring if we all thought the same, I'd have no one to argue with for a start and it would mean Diggers and I would agree on everything. Imagine that.

Just revisiting Ooh La la and Stay With Me by The Faces. I like the fact that bands like that were overshadowed by The Beatles, being the most popular doesn't mean you were the best.

Precisely the point I have been trying to make all along

Not sure I entirely agree that the Beatles were the first either although they were certainly the most popular of their genre. They've got a certain Berry Gordy Jnr and Smokey Robinson to thank for a lot of their early influences and when you consider that 'Money' by Barratt Strong was recorded in 1959, that predates the Beatles by a wee bit.

I think the group that never fully got the recognition they truly deserved were the Kinks. You just couldn't find a more quintessential British Group, developed their own sound and style and imvho Waterloo Sunset and Sunny Afternoon are every bit as good as anything the Beatles ever wrote. In terms of the Beatles, for me, George Harrison was who made them great, he didn't write a lot of stuff, but what he did write was pretty special. Really it's only post '66 stuff which interests me. He was also easily the best musician out of the quartet.

Obviously a lot of us like some decent guitar players, but for me this guy is the best around, and even Clapton admits it. Seen mim live lasy year and seeing him again next month, check it out

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ty7BJu3ddk0

I love the way this thread has taken off!

NST - as we've said before, this is all largely objective but I'd suggest that, whether you like him or not, or what he produced, McCartney was undoubtedly the best musician in the Beatles from a purely technical point of view. You may prefer Harri Georgeson's output (as is your privilige) and I'd never try to argue against personal opinion, but from a more objective and technical point of view, McCartney would surely have the edge over the rest

Doc wrote:Obviously a lot of us like some decent guitar players, but for me this guy is the best around, and even Clapton admits it. Seen mim live lasy year and seeing him again next month, check it out

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ty7BJu3ddk0

Doc - for those of us who can't access YouTube at work ... who is it?

Faldono1fan wrote:How about some golf related songs? Eg:-

The Birdie song
Anything by the Eagles
The Par of love
Who's going to drive you long?
Shanks for the memories.
Bogey Wonderland
Rescue me
Fairway to Heaven
The green,green grass of home
Holed me now
Club tropicana
3 is the magic number
Anything by Dr Hook,Fats Domino or Thin Lizzy

Very, very good. Especially like "Bogey Wonderland". Quality .

Noshankingtonite wrote:
Glen Miller was better than Duke Ellington or Cab Callaway?
Elvis Presley was better than Buddy Holly or Chuck Berry
The Beatles were better than The Who, Beach Boys or Hendrix
Bowie was better than Santana, Fleetwood Mac or Queen
U2 were better than Simple Minds, New Order or Spandau Ballet
Take That were better than Blur, The Verve or Oasis
Beyonce is better than Eminem, Britney Spears or Christina Aguilera

For me:
The Duke
Buddy Holly > Chuck > Elvis. Elvis held back by the Colonel's shmaltzy pap methinks.
Hendrix (I'm a rocker after all) but Beatles pretty close.
Queen.
New Order (U2??? U2???? Puhleeze!)
Blur maybe?
Eminem (and I don't even like 'rap' as a rule).

Anyone like the Yardbirds or Cream? Don't much care for Clapton these days but he could play a bit back in the day.

Doc wrote:Obviously a lot of us like some decent guitar players, but for me this guy is the best around, and even Clapton admits it. Seen mim live lasy year and seeing him again next month, check it out

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ty7BJu3ddk0

Shoot! That's pretty good. Love the sound of that Gibson.
On a rock-bent, I really like Joe Satriani.

Davie

Joe Bonamassa. Hate to say (and I'm a big guitar fan) that I've never heard of him. No idea why given his playing.

navyblueshorts wrote:Shoot! That's pretty good. Love the sound of that Gibson.
On a rock-bent, I really like Joe Satriani.

Davie

Joe Bonamassa. Hate to say (and I'm a big guitar fan) that I've never heard of him. No idea why given his playing.

Ah yes - JoBo .. the darling of the Planet Rock radio station. I first discovered him 3 or 4 years ago when there were a whole load of his albums available for free (and legal) download on we7. Great guitarist but has suffered a little in recent years (IMO) by over-exposure from the likes of Planet Rock (he even had his own show on there).

He is also a workaholic and churns out album by the bucketload and there is a suggestion that the quality suffers at the expense of quantity. If you like him though you should check out the album (and title track) Sloe Gin. Also there is a DVD of him performnig at the Albert Hall (inculding a guest appearance from Clapton).

As a workaholic he has also been involved with Black Country Communion (JoBo, Glenn Hughes, Derek Sherinian and Jason Bonham) - doing more rock than blues.

And yes, Satriani is cool - in fact I started a thread over in the music section one night asking if he was really the coolest man in rock! There are some guitarists who I consider "better" but none as cool as Joe. If you haven't heard him with Chickenfoot (another "supergroup") then I seriously suggest you rectify that immediately!

There are a lot of sweeping statements here.

The Beatles, overated? I admit the early stuff has not stood the test of time, but some of the later tracks are still classics. Though Death sells, and the premature death of Lennon has helped the legacy. I do believe that Gimme Shelter by the Stones is as good as almost anything the Beatles produced. But it is very easy to knock the beatles due to the huge sucess over the years. Its very hard to knock Eleanor Rigby.

I was born in 1980, and started getting into music in the early 90s so will not hear a bad word said about Nirvana, as well as a lot of other bands from this era.

I also dont get the whole (c)rap responses aswell, I assume its a bit of a bandwagon jump, by people that have not listened to the differences in the scene, listen to Lupe Fiasco he is very different to your Ludacris. And even Kanye is very good and talented. But again its very hard to knock the Beastie Boys.

With regards to the singers are only good if they write their own songs, look at Mowtown this was just a music factory with songs being written for teh artists this has not dimished how good the songs where.

Out of current/recent artists I love Muse ( queen a heavy influence though not keen on them) Arcade Fire are very good aswell.

But my one recomendation is Ryan Adams. His album Gold is perfect. Blues/Country/Rock. Superb.

Heard someone arguing over who was the best band, The Beatles or The Rolling Stones? One response was one wrote a song about a yellow submarine and the other about being the devil...

Davie, Joe Bonamassa is a workaholic without doubt, but all his latest albums have no quality issues, and indeed are superb productions. His latest 'Dust Bowl' is awesome.

He's also very approachable and have spoken to some people who turn up well early at his gigs, and go in for the sound check. he actually sits and chats with them and allows photo's etc. Unlike people like Bono et al.

For fans of great players, we can usually tell who's playing guitar when hearing something new. Clapton, Sattriani, Moore, Frampton, Beck, Hendrix etc, but with JB its slightly different as he can sound like each of them. Spotted by BB King at the tender age of 12, and King used him on a TV show which amazed the viewers. History after that as he's been around for ages, but still a kid. The term 'a guitar players player' is often over used, but not in this case

Doc - I forgot to mention that when he sings he has the typical voice of a blues singer (sounds like he smokes 60 a day and gargles hooch) - but when he speaks he sounds like Kermit

This may sound strange to some, but was curious if anyone around here liked to listen to Mahavishnu? For me still one of the best collections of virtuoso musicians ever. Produced some real classic pieces, which I still enjoy listening to a lot every now and then... Like this one

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GXcMk6OG1Xc

Lairdy wrote:Heard someone arguing over who was the best band, The Beatles or The Rolling Stones? One response was one wrote a song about a yellow submarine and the other about being the devil...

Not sure how that even begins to answer the querstion. If you dont like songs about the devil then unlikely you'd be a Stones fan. At least the Beatles wrote a song like Yellow Submarine and managed to get away with it, can you imagine the stones doing the same thing, not really. As Ive aged Ive come to not mind a few stones tracks but by and large find it all incredibly samey and ultimately just dont like the sound of Jaggers voice so its never going to work for me.
What do people think is more important, melody or lyrics ? Im a melody man personally.